Media relations remains central to effective communications. But as AI changes how people search for and discover information, our traditional measures of media influence may no longer tell the whole story.
That was the big theme in Andy Barr’s session at the PRmoment Masterclass on AI in PR.
For years, PR teams have built media lists around audience, relevance, reach, authority and relationships. That still matters, but generative engine optimisation, or GEO, adds another layer to consider:
📰 Which publishers are being surfaced in AI answers?
🤝 Which titles have licensing deals with LLMs?
♻️ Which sites are refreshed regularly?
💬 Which communities are shaping the conversation?
It raises an important question: are the publications with the greatest traditional reach always the ones exerting the greatest influence within AI-led discovery?
Licensing is one signal, not the whole story
LLM licensing on its own does not guarantee visibility. Plenty of unlicensed, specialist and community-led sources remain highly influential.
However, licensing is one of several signals that may affect how easily publishers’ content can be accessed, cited or surfaced by AI tools.
It sits alongside factors such as subject expertise, content freshness, topic depth, user engagement, links and references from other sources, and whether a publisher is actively restricting AI access to its content.
The picture is also changing quickly. Deals between publishers and AI companies continue to develop, while the ways different platforms retrieve, cite and prioritise information are far from settled.
This is not yet an exact science, and it would be risky to build a media strategy around licensing agreements alone. But it is becoming another useful consideration when assessing where influence sits.
More coverage does not automatically mean more discoverability
This creates a different way of thinking about media influence, with real implications for how campaigns are planned.
One of Andy’s points was that broad, syndicated coverage may still create valuable awareness and “noise”, but it does not necessarily carry the same value in AI-driven discovery as a well-placed piece in the right environment.
Many media lists are still built around long-established assumptions about scale: more titles, more links and more pieces of coverage. But more coverage does not automatically mean more discoverability.
Increasingly, value may sit in the quality, authority, relevance and accessibility of the source, as well as how useful and regularly updated its content is.
A single piece within a respected, highly relevant publication may sometimes contribute more to long-term discovery than multiple syndicated articles, depending on how and where the audiences are searching for information.
Where affiliate content fits
It has often been treated as more commercial than editorial, but affiliate content can play an important role in helping publishers fund useful, frequently updated buying guides, reviews and product-led articles.
If that content answers real audience questions, remains current and is more likely to appear within search and AI-led discovery journeys, it becomes harder for PR teams to ignore.
This could also affect how certain stories are pitched. For relevant consumer and ecommerce brands, understanding whether an affiliate programme exists, which publishers use it and how commercial and editorial teams work together may become a more important part of media planning.
That does not mean blurring the line between paid and earned media, or prioritising commission over editorial relevance. It means understanding the publishing model and recognising that commercially sustainable content can still be useful, authoritative and influential.
Influence increasingly extends beyond traditional media
The same applies to Reddit, LinkedIn and niche online communities.
They are not just places where conversations happen after a story has been published. They are increasingly part of the discovery ecosystem itself.
Specialist forums and communities can provide detailed, first-hand perspectives that are difficult to find elsewhere. LinkedIn articles and expert commentary can help shape professional conversations. Reddit discussions can reveal the questions, language and concerns that matter to particular audiences.
For PR teams, these spaces can support insight and ideation, as well as helping us understand how brands, products and issues are already being discussed.
But they need to be approached carefully. Communities are built on participation and trust, not simply content distribution. Any brand involvement should be transparent, genuinely useful and appropriate to the platform.
Rethinking media strategy
GEO is not a shiny replacement for media relations, or a reason to chase empty noise.
It is a prompt to ask better questions about media strategy:
📈 Which sources are gaining authority?
🧭 Which publishers and communities are shaping the answers people see?
📚 Which content is useful enough to be updated, referenced and repeated?
⏳ Where do we need to build presence and authority over time, rather than focusing only on coverage in the moment?
And how should these factors sit alongside the audience insight, editorial relevance and journalist relationships that have always underpinned good media relations?
This is not about promising instant visibility in AI-generated answers. Nor is it about claiming that we can fully control what an LLM chooses to surface.
It is about recognising that influence is becoming more layered, and making sure our media planning evolves with it.
